The People's Traction

In America and many countries the world over, we have adopted democratic principles, founded upon strong and mostly just ideas (Such as the Constitution of the United States of America).

With that said, many of we the People feel that our tax dollars are being used in ways that are not ways we would want them to be used, and we do not feel the decisions being made, either on state, or federal levels, are truly considerate of the well being and progress of the People, and hitherto, the country. There is a sense that many of the representatives are inept or incapable of keeping the People's best interests in mind, some would say it is due to lobbyists, some would say it is due to the supposed grandeur of their positions, still some would say it is due to ingrained systemic issues of our political system, be it the two party dichotomy with it's manufacturing of people's "views" or the overt and growing arrogance of political authority, as evidenced by the seemingly increasing rate of liberties being taken, true Constitutional violations that are being pandered to the people as normal and acceptable.

Enough is enough.



Many of us, the People, seek solutions for the re-stabilization of our economy and our future.




Now, I don't claim this to be the solution, but I wanted to spark some discussion.

The idea of a direct democracy, or pure democracy.



This form of democracy, however, has been largely considered as impossibly ineffective due to various reasons, including motivation of the people, organization, and overall effects on the economy and structured government.


Here goes nothing: imagine something like this:

A hybridization of a democratic republic with a direct democracy, keeping the federal level mostly as it is, BUT, a direct democracy would be enacted for the state level and state decisions. This would require a certain level of lenience by the federal government, but they would still act in the best interest of maintaining the stability of our union.

Now, more than ever, do we have ways of asserting a direct democracy successfully. Where they were seen to fail in the past, society is much different now. We have means to communicate massive amounts of information, instantly. Nothing of the sort, in terms of efficiency and interconnectedness, has existed as far as our technology or knowledge goes.

Through these means, I believe that we could hold official forums, both in person and official online discussion, where each state would allow the postulation of ideas and public discussion upon, which would be easily accessible, especially the archived online discussions.

The ideas would be evaluated by everyone, possibly including some type of federally appointed council or group of state councils that would offer their take on it, both logistically, budget wise etc, and subjectively. People would discuss, alter the proposal as seen fit, and eventually create the official proposal and vote. If we were to allow for short voting intervals in terms of the official posting and voting of the proposal (say, each new year's day, 10-20 are posted to vote upon, rather than every 2 or 4 to vote for a new representative and a few half assed measures), we could see some rapid and major progress in the state level, and thus, the country. This would also, I believe, allow for a much more dynamic and adaptive system.

This would put the control at the state level back in the hands of the People. It would be the people of the states choosing how their tax dollars are mostly spent. I also believe that it would encourage people to get more involved, and actually learn more about the proposed legislation, rather than simply vote for whatever. Who knows, maybe we could even enact some type of vetting process for eligibility to vote each year for each specific legislation. The purpose is to ensure that the decision would be made by those that were most willing to truly make the best decision they could, unlike the current "We know what's best for you, vote as we say, and no one gets hurt."

It could be as simple as requiring each person to go through a 30 minute registration process every year, including a few basic questions about the proposed legislation. For example, if one couldn't get at least, say, 3/5 basic facts of the legislation right, then they would be ineligible, that year, to vote on that specific proposal. They would still be able to gain eligibility on the rest of the proposals. It'd reduce the whole lemming issue we have right now...throw around voters who are used as BS agenda pushers.

It seems like we're so used to the way things are (or have been made to believe we are) that we are literally afraid to question the current way things are done, let alone (dare we) suggest a new way of doing things.

Anyway, as mentioned, these are just ideas, and seeing as how trends are, probably fleeting. I'd love to hear back from anyone interested in the subject of political change. Obviously, if anything like this were to be enacted, it would have to be carefully constructed and planned out for maximum transition smoothness and stability of the economy, and well being of the People.


Cheers

reply to post by Soloro


I'm all for a representative system.
Really, how often will people go out to vote on every single little topic of discussion before they just stop out of disinterest and simply allow a representative system to form by default?

Representatives, however, should be held accountable.

I'm not sure where I've heard the idea, but, someone once said that Representatives should live like the very least of those they represent.

In other words, if your Constituents are homeless, and going hungry, as a representative, you should also be working out of a tent and eating rations until you FIX the problem.

It's a ground up system.
Focus on eliminating the societal problems that create a poverty and homeless class citizens, and once done, work on elevating the next lowest level, continually raising the bar from the bottom up.

If representatives have to live and work in conditions on par with the lowest of their constituents, then, representatives would be quite a bit more keen about elevating their own comforts through fixing those of their constituents.

reply to post by Druscilla


I hear that, very good points. There are certainly gross discrepancies in the valuation of the People's needs, especially lower class and homeless, in comparison to the "have's" and decision makers.

The whole people losing interest thing is precisely the point. Get the ones who actually care about making the best decisions they can, in regard to the proposals. If the majority of the people, hell, if almost all the people don't, or wouldn't care about the proposals, then no wonder, we get what we are deserving for our apathy through the inept representatives we 'elect'.

I'm unsure if you read the whole post, but in it I mentioned that the point is that our state representatives have largely failed us time and again. Also, the idea was that several proposals would be discussed to hone the logistics of the proposal throughout the year, wherein, every first of the year (or whatever set day) would be the day that the specific proposal is voted upon, lol not every discussion being voted upon sporadically.

Hope that cleared up any confusion. The ideas take a lot from the current way things are done.

reply to post by Soloro


The caring and responsibility part is important.
If politics is not a path of privilege like it is now, but instead a burden and responsibility where a representative actually feels the discomfort of those most in need with their constituency, then, only those that truly care will offer themselves up for politics.

Wealthy influential sorts that want any sort of action would thus also have incentive for assisting in mediating issues at the lowest level, because by doing so, not only do they raise the lower end societal comfort level, but also the comfort level of the representative politician.

With enough time, such a system could see the end to homelessness and a poverty class where the very lowest denominator in society is what we know as comfortable middle class now.

That's optimistic of course, but, one can dream.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Soloro

 

The caring and responsibility part is important.
If politics is not a path of privilege like it is now, but instead a burden and responsibility where a representative actually feels the discomfort of those most in need with their constituency, then, only those that truly care will offer themselves up for politics.

Wealthy influential sorts that want any sort of action would thus also have incentive for assisting in mediating issues at the lowest level, because by doing so, not only do they raise the lower end societal comfort level, but also the comfort level of the representative politician.

With enough time, such a system could see the end to homelessness and a poverty class where the very lowest denominator in society is what we know as comfortable middle class now.

That's optimistic of course, but, one can dream.

Agreed! I would love to see that.

reply to post by Druscilla


I love the thought of Nancy Pelosi having a $10.00 allotment for cosmetics for a month, and living like the homeless in San Francisco.

Some states, like CA, vote on Propisitions, but we see the Propisitions being over-turned by activist courts. So, even where there are laws that are voted on by the people, we see them overturned.

There are supposed to be 3 equal divisions among the Government, but it seems, whoever has the most money wins, every time.